Unrebutted evidence established the employer–employee relationship, sustaining compensation liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Ashish, aged approximately 32 years, was allegedly employed as a driver by Mangal Singh Matuda, the registered owner of Maruti 800 bearing registration No. UK-07-X-0436, at a monthly salary of ₹8,000.

On 24 September 2015, while driving the vehicle from Kaplani-Suwakholi towards Mussoorie, the vehicle allegedly developed a technical fault, went out of control, and fell into a roadside ditch, resulting in Ashish’s death.

His dependants filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, asserting that he died in the course of employment and that the vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/CJM, Uttarkashi, found that Ashish was employed as the vehicle’s driver, that the accident occurred during the course of employment, and that the vehicle was insured by the appellant; compensation of ₹8,25,400 was consequently awarded.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, principally disputing the existence of an employer–employee relationship.

1. Whether the Commissioner erred in law in finding that an employer–employee relationship existed between the vehicle owner and the deceased driver.

2. Whether, in the absence of such a relationship, the claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was maintainable and the insurer could be held liable.

The Court applied the Workmen’s Compensation Act, including the principle that compensation is payable where a workman suffers death from an employment-related accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

It also applied Section 30 of the Act, under which an appeal lies to the High Court only on a substantial question of law.

The existence of an employer–employee relationship is a question to be determined from the evidence on record, and a factual finding supported by admissible evidence and a reasoned order ordinarily does not warrant interference in a Section 30 appeal.

The owner, Mangal Singh Matuda, appeared before the Commissioner and expressly deposed that he owned the vehicle, that Ashish had been employed by him as a driver for approximately four years, and that he paid Ashish ₹8,000 per month in cash.

He also confirmed that Ashish possessed a valid driving licence and that the vehicle’s documents were valid on the date of the accident.

Although the insurer denied the alleged employment relationship, it produced no oral or documentary evidence to rebut the owner’s testimony.

The Commissioner therefore concluded, on the basis of the evidence, that Ashish was the owner’s employee and that he died while driving the vehicle in the course of employment.

The High Court found these conclusions to be based on the record and supported by a detailed and reasoned judgment; consequently, no substantial legal error warranting interference under Section 30 was established.

It upheld the finding that Ashish was employed by the vehicle owner and died in an accident arising during the course of his employment.

The award of ₹8,25,400 in favour of the claimants was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.